Do atheists have any evidence to support their beliefs?

[Kylie]

There have been a vast number of physical theories of the universe too, but only one can be correct. A proliferation of ideas doesn't not make all ideas false.

True. But it doesn't mean any of them are true, either.

So you gotta look at the evidence. So far, the only evidence Christianity has is no different to what any number of other religions has.

It is quite manifestly true, at least for some branches of science. As long as theories reproduce the observable data, they are good theories, and it is clear that different theories may reproduce the same observable data. (There have also been many examples in physics of "wrong" theories producing correct predictions.)

So how did we find out they were wrong?

The multiverse has no evidence to support it though. It is as much a statement of faith as any religion. There isn't even circumstantial evidence because there is no agreed on formulation of M-theory to provide the vacuum states never mind an analysis of the actual vacua themselves. Also, one would expect to see domain walls in the universe at the boundaries between the vacuum state bubbles, and we do not see them. Then the question becomes, why are the bubbles larger than our observable universe? (Though to be fair, cosmic inflation, if ever confirmed could be an answer to that last question.)

And I never presented it as fact. I just said that it is a possible explanation.

 

[Holoman]

When you say "God" is this a specific God? Or anything/being people believe is God?

Any god. Atheism would be the belief that no gods exist at all. For example, views like naturalism or materialism.

 

[Ken-1122]

Any god. Atheism would be the belief that no gods exist at all. For example, views like naturalism or materialism.

Halle Selassie (ex president of Ethopia who died in the 1970's) is still worshipped as God by many rastifarians. Kumari is still alive today and believed to be God in Nepal. There are people who worship the Sun. Do you really believe an atheist is going to deny the EXISTENCE of these people and things just because there are people who believe they are Gods?

 

[Jon Osterman]

So how did we find out they were wrong?

They haven't all been found to be wrong.

Sometimes they are proved wrong by further experiments. But until they are they are valid theories. More interestingly, some are not proven wrong at all and remain alternative theories - sometimes they are neglected because they are more complicated. Most interesting perhaps are the classes of theories that can be proven to be mathematically identical, in which case you can never prove them wrong (without also proving the mainsteam theory wrong).

And I never presented it as fact. I just said that it is a possible explanation.

Fair enough. Howver, my point stands - the multiverse is as sceintifically rigorous as saying "God did it" (ie. not).

 

[Kylie]

They haven't all been found to be wrong.

Then why are you bringing them up in a discussion about wrong theories providing correct data?

Sometimes they are proved wrong by further experiments. But until they are they are valid theories. More interestingly, some are not proven wrong at all and remain alternative theories - sometimes they are neglected because they are more complicated. Most interesting perhaps are the classes of theories that can be proven to be mathematically identical, in which case you can never prove them wrong (without also proving the mainsteam theory wrong).

But it's always science which does it, isn't it?

Fair enough. Howver, my point stands - the multiverse is as sceintifically rigorous as saying "God did it" (ie. not).

For the moment.

But it is conceivable that at some point in the future we will be able to go looking for evidence about the multiverse and be able to come to a scientific understanding. I can't imagine that would ever be the case for God.

 

[Strathos]

I don't see why there can't be one God throughout multiple universes.

 

[Ken-1122]

But it is conceivable that at some point in the future we will be able to go looking for evidence about the multiverse and be able to come to a scientific understanding. I can't imagine that would ever be the case for God.

If Universe is defined as "all that exist" how can there be more than one?

 

[Gene2memE]

Any god. Atheism would be the belief that no gods exist at all. For example, views like naturalism or materialism.

That would be one particular subset of atheists.

I'm perfectly open to the concept of gods existing, its just that nothing presented to me has convinced me they do. I lack believe, I don't have belief in a lack.

Its a fine distinction, but an important one.

For example, my brother would agree with the claim 'No Gods Exist'. I would not. But I also wouldn't agree with the claim 'Some Gods Exist'. I would state that neither has met their burden of proof to my satisfaction - and therefore both are equally likely until further evidence is presented.

As to naturalism and materialism, it's probably just easier to roll them into the general category of philosophical physicalism.

Otherwise, you have to make sure you're distinguishing between methodological and philosophical naturalism and when it comes to materialism you need to distinguish which philosophical branch you're talking about.

 

[Ken-1122]

That would be one particular subset of atheists.

I'm perfectly open to the concept of gods existing, its just that nothing presented to me has convinced me they do. I lack believe, I don't have belief in a lack.

Its a fine distinction, but an important one.

For example, my brother would agree with the claim 'No Gods Exist'. I would not. But I also wouldn't agree with the claim 'Some Gods Exist'. I would state that neither has met their burden of proof to my satisfaction - and therefore both are equally likely until further evidence is presented.

I think it would be foolish to proclaim "no Gods exist" unless there is an understanding of what is meant by "God". As I pointed out before, there are things and beings called God that clearly DO exist.

 

[Kylie]

If Universe is defined as "all that exist" how can there be more than one?

I dunno. First, tell me why that should be the definition of "universe".

 

[Holoman]

Halle Selassie (ex president of Ethopia who died in the 1970's) is still worshipped as God by many rastifarians. Kumari is still alive today and believed to be God in Nepal. There are people who worship the Sun. Do you really believe an atheist is going to deny the EXISTENCE of these people and things just because there are people who believe they are Gods?

No ,it's pretty obvious an atheist would deny the claim they are gods.

 

[GrowingSmaller]

You make it sound like science is some amazing hard to do thing. It's not. It's being systematic. Anyone can do it, provided they put a bit of thought into it and look for evidence.

You didnt answer. People have been rational only since science (ie for a couple of centuries), or not?

 

[GrowingSmaller]

Since "common usage" is apparently debatable (and I guess semantics wasn´t the intended topic):
It seems the original question is directed towards those who positively assert that no Gods exist. Unfortunately for the OP there are only very few such persons around.

What about "God does not exist" for all intents and purposes? Would a person lacking belief in God be happy with that?

 

[GrowingSmaller]

Ok, do weak atheists have evidence (or reasonable grounds) to justify their lack of belief in God?

 

[GrowingSmaller]

IMO evolution is true according to its presuppositions, and so is last thursdayism in accordance with its presuppositions.


I am thinking that they are both true, but in different epistemic locations and for different agents with different "presuppositional lenses" and metaphysical paradigms (yet, theyre not both true at the same space and time for the same agent).

Theyre both true.

And so the truth of one falsifies the truth of the other.

But one truth is "over here" and the other truth is "over there"...

No one person has the absolute truth,

Two principles: truth is localised and truth is lensed...

Each lives in a "separate reality" in accordance with his metaphysical paradigm, which in some way nondual to himself.

This may seem odd, but it (i.e. truth pluralism) is probably better than pragmatism.

I am thinking of Quines philosophy here:

However, like Gods of Homer, physical objects are posits, and there is no great epistemic difference in kind; the difference is rather that the theory of physical objects has turned out to be a more efficient theory....

...For Quine, every change in the system of science is, when rational, pragmatic.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two_Dogmas_of_Empiricism#Quine's_holism

And

Hence all our knowledge, for Quine, would be epistemologically no different from ancient Greek gods, which were posited in order to account for experience.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duhem–Quine_thesis#Willard_Van_Orman_Quine

So even in the philosophy of science, Gods can be as legitimate as the physical world, in that they're both mere "posits" - its only the practical consequences that seems to matter to Quine. i.e. science gets things done.

So, likewise, back to the Koran, I am reminded to requote that quote "travel the land and see what was the end of those who rejected Truth".

This seems to be a fusion of realism and pragmatism...

But, if religion also gets things done, why reject it????

 

[KCfromNC]

Ok, do weak atheists have evidence (or reasonable grounds) to justify their lack of belief in God?

Yes. The lack of evidence for gods. Also, the need for believers to ask questions like this rather than just present some.

 

[KCfromNC]

IMO evolution is true according to its presuppositions

Good on you for believing this, but the reality is that it is true because we see it happening.

 

[Gell]

 

[Jon Osterman]

Then why are you bringing them up in a discussion about wrong theories providing correct data?

I was countering your assertion that a post-apocalyptic society would rediscover all the same science theories. I don't think this is true and gave my reasoning.

But it's always science which does it, isn't it?

It should be no surprise that only scientific observations inform science. That is the very essence of the scientific method. But scientific observations do not have a monopoly on truth. There can be plenty of observations that are not scientific (e.g. not reproducible) and correspondingly there can be true facts about the universe that cannot be obtained by scientific methods. It is interesting that some (I am not implying you are among them) declare that only truths obtained by the scientific method are indeed "real" truths, which in itself I find a curiously religious statement.

But it is conceivable that at some point in the future we will be able to go looking for evidence about the multiverse and be able to come to a scientific understanding. I can't imagine that would ever be the case for God.

I don't think so - certainly not in the lifetimes of our grandchildren. How would you suggest doing this? At the very least, you would need to overcome the potential barrier between vacuum states, which would need colliders roughly 100,000,000,000 times the energy of current colliders (and that is a conservative estimate - we would need an extra factor of 1000 to reach the string scale). As I said previously, we have already looked for indirect evidence, such as domain walls, and found nothing. With no prospect of evidence, the multiverse needs to be put to bed. (And I am saying that for the benefit of science, not religion.)

 

[Jon Osterman]

If Universe is defined as "all that exist" how can there be more than one?

That is just a semantic issue. I personally agree that the multiverse is a poor name, since obviously all the different vacuum bubbles exist in the same "universe", in the sense of your definition. It is named the multiverse because it sounds fun (scientists occasionally have a sense of humour) and to give the sense that every different vacuum bubble has entirely different laws of physics. But to dismiss it because it has a poor name would not be very good thinking.

While I am at it, I should perhaps say what the multiverse idea is, since I think there is some confusion here. All fundamental physics theories have a lowest energy state, normally called the "vacuum". (It is called this because it is usually the state with nothing in it, but actually it needn't be.) String theories have been shown to have many different lowest energy states, all with the same energy, but separated by a barrier. Imagine a landscape of hills with valleys all the same depth - you can get from one to the other only by climbing the hills or tunnelling through them. Living in each valley would give you different laws of physics (usually widely different, and in most structure won't even form), but which vacuum a region of space ends up in is random. Therefore you would expect other areas of the universe to have ended up in different valleys (vacua) and have different laws of physics. This allows the anthropic principle to come into play - intelligent life could only evolve in vacua that were fine-tuned enough to permit intelligent life, so fine-tuning would be a consequence, not a problem.

As I said earlier, I dislike this theory on scientific grounds, not religious ones.